2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettIn your opinion can there be such a thing as a theist Freethinker? If so, are all types of theism compatible with the 'Freethinking' label? (Presumably yes provided the individual's critical reasoning process satisfies general 'Freethinking' principles?)
I am not espousing anti-theology. I am not claiming anything. It is you who is claiming that there is a god. In order for me to believe your claim, you must provide me with some good evidence. If you cannot do so, then I must doubt it.
My mind is perfectly open. If you can give me some good evidence for the existence of god, then I'll believe it. If you can't, then I'll continue to assume your claim is false.
(I confess to having done no reading on the subject, so forgive me if the question is very basic to the point of cliché, or has already been answered in this thread.)
Originally posted by rwingettYou misunderstand me. I have claimed nothing other than there may not be proof. That was what my claim was nothing more nothing less. But I have a personal theory and that is that lack of proof proves nothing. And that an abundance of proof can easily be ignored.
I am not espousing anti-theology. I am not claiming anything. It is you who is claiming that there is a god. In order for me to believe your claim, you must provide me with some good evidence. If you cannot do so, then I must doubt it.
My mind is perfectly open. If you can give me some good evidence for the existence of god, then I'll believe it. If you can't, then I'll continue to assume your claim is false.
Originally posted by rwingettGood oh.
I agree, you idiot.
I do not make the claim that "there is no god." I have never done so. All I am doing is asking the theist to demonstrate the validity of his claim. If he cannot do so, then his claim must be assumed to be false. This does not prove it to be false, but there is absolutely no reason to assume it's true either.
Originally posted by T1000Absolutely. He would have to be what if generally classified as an 'agnostic theist.' Which is to say that he admits that the existence of god cannot be proven, but chooses to accept the claim anyway. The person who questions his faith and freely admits that he might very well be wrong could be a freethinking theist. Unfortunately, they are in short supply. What we see too much of are people who, while technically admitting that god cannot be proven, will continue to believe it as the gospel truth. Furthermore, they seem to think it is their duty to get you to believe exactly as they do.
In your opinion can there be such a thing as a theist Freethinker? If so, are all types of theism compatible with the 'Freethinking' label? (Presumably yes provided the individual's critical reasoning process satisfies general 'Freethinking' principles?)
(I confess to having done no reading on the subject, so forgive me if the question is very basic to the point of cliché, or has already been answered in this thread.)
Originally posted by cashthetrashLack of proof proves nothing. I agree with you absolutely. But lack of proof gives no one any grounds to believe anything either. But I fail to see how an abundance of proof can be ignored.
You misunderstand me. I have claimed nothing other than there may not be proof. That was what my claim was nothing more nothing less. But I have a personal theory and that is that lack of proof proves nothing. And that an abundance of proof can easily be ignored.
The bottom line is that there are no rational grounds on which to base a belief in any gods. I agree that a lack of proof for their existence does not disprove them, but there is no reason to believe in them either. I do not need to have proof in their non-existence to withhold my belief from any hypothetical gods.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI'm usually on the anti-preaching side of this type of discussion.
I am not espousing anti-theology. I am not claiming anything. It is you who is claiming that there is a god. In order for me to believe your claim, you must provide me with some good evidence. If you cannot do so, then I must doubt it.
My mind is perfectly open. If you can give me some good evidence for the existence of god, then I'll believe it. If you can't, then I'll continue to assume your claim is false.
I would consider you slightly close-minded if you only accept stuff you have proof of.....and although I don't see myself as a "believer" [religion-wise] it does seem more reasonable that life didn't spring up of its own accord out of nothing. [where did the nothing come from before life?]
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThe lack of a good explanation for how life originated does not prove the existence of your particular god. Plus, using 'god' as an answer for how life originated brings up far more questions than it answers.
I'm usually on the anti-preaching side of this type of discussion.
I would consider you slightly close-minded if you only accept stuff you have proof of.....and although I don't see myself as a "believer" [religion-wise] it does seem more reasonable that life didn't spring up of its own accord out of nothing. [where did the nothing come from before life?]
But as it happens, there are several plausible naturalistic theories of how life originated on this planet. I'm sure a little google search will turn up some.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettApologies if this sounds like Freethinking101 for simpletons (and I'm aware of the limitations in merely ascribing labels to people; I'm interested anyway), but presumably the 'mirror' of your answer is that a Freethinker who chooses not to accept the claim would be classified as an 'agnostic atheist', rather than simply an 'atheist'? Or does the question make little sense as a non-believing 'Freethinker' need not question his lack of belief or doubt his lack of belief, since there is nothing 'there' to question or doubt?
Absolutely. He would have to be what if generally classified as an 'agnostic theist.' Which is to say that he admits that the existence of god cannot be proven, but chooses to accept the claim anyway. The person who questions his faith and freely admits that he might very well be wrong could be a freethinking theist. Unfortunately, they are in short supply. ...[text shortened]... th. Furthermore, they seem to think it is their duty to get you to believe exactly as they do.
Hmm. I guess I'm just trying to get my head around the commonly used terms so as to better understand the debate.
Originally posted by rwingettDo I really need to prove how an abundance of proof can be ignored?
Lack of proof proves nothing. I agree with you absolutely. But lack of proof gives no one any grounds to believe anything either. But I fail to see how an abundance of proof can be ignored.
The bottom line is that there are no rational grounds on which to base a belief in any gods. I agree that a lack of proof for their existence does not disprove them, ...[text shortened]... not need to have proof in their non-existence to withhold my belief from any hypothetical gods.
Does OJ Simpson come to mind? If one believes there is false evidence and another true evidence, evidence is commonly ignored. One piece of evidence is your claim that it is mans duty to prove that God exists. It could be that it is Gods duty to prove god exists. If God has not proven that he exists, could it be because he doesn't know you? It could be that he doesn't believe in your existence. Maybe you should introduce your self to him so that he might reveal himself. Are you afraid of the consequences? You might be scorned you know. If he were to reveal himself to you, How would you prove it?
1 edit
Originally posted by T1000There are several degrees of classification. There are many arguments about this but it is commonly agreed (but not by me) that from greater belief to lesser, they go as follows:
Apologies if this sounds like Freethinking101 for simpletons (and I'm aware of the limitations in merely ascribing labels to people; I'm interested anyway), but presumably the 'mirror' of your answer is that a Freethinker who chooses not to accept the claim would be classified as an 'agnostic atheist', rather than simply an 'atheist'? Or does the question make o get my head around the commonly used terms so as to better understand the debate.
theist
agnostic theist
agnostic
agnostic atheist
atheist
Atheists are typically classified as 'strong' or 'hard' atheists or 'soft' or 'weak' atheists. A strong atheist would be someone who claims there is no god. This would be the opposite of the theist claiming there is a god. A soft atheist would be one who, while admitting that there can be no proof for god's existence, sees no reason to believe the claim. He doubts the existence of god by default. Soft atheists are also sometimes called agnostic atheists.
Unfortunately, EVERYONE seems to think that all atheists are strong atheists. But this is not the case. Strong atheists are largely bogeymen that christians like to argue against so they can escape from having to share the entire burden of proof. But the fact is that there are no strong atheists. At least none who know what they're talking about. All atheists who are worth their salt will be soft atheists.
There are many people who label themselves as 'agnostics.' It is my personal conviction that this is a cop-out on their part. They're really atheists but lack the guts to say so. I will give you the following example:
A theist is someone who believes in god. If you do not believe in god, then you are not a theist. Which means that you are an atheist (a=without, theist=belief in god). I contend that everyone is either a theist or an atheist. All agnostics are really cowardly atheists (or unconvinced thiests). This positioning of agnosticism as being some kind of non-judgemental halfway point between them is nothing but BS. Once we dispell the misconceptions about what atheism entails, we see that there is really no need for so-called agnosticism.
Originally posted by rwingettWell, I agree with that part.
I don't ridicule people who claim that god might exist. I only ridicule people who claim to "know" that god exists.
I didn't mean you specifically [re: ridiculing peoples beliefs] but there seems to be plenty of others who do, which I find more repulsive than the actual preaching itself.
Originally posted by cashthetrashI don't give a hoot why god has not been proven. The fact is that there is no reason to believe in him. None. Yes evidence matters. You can convince 12 people of anything, as in your O.J. Simpson example. Which is to say that you can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. People have failed for 2,000 years to provide any evidence for the existence of god. All the while we have developed many reasons not to believe in god. None of this proves anything, but this persistant and growing doubt does not bode well for god. All you seem to be saying is that if I believed in god, then I'd believe in god. Well what do you know about that?
Do I really need to prove how an abundance of proof can be ignored?
Does OJ Simpson come to mind? If one believes there is false evidence and another true evidence, evidence is commonly ignored. One piece of evidence is your claim that it is mans duty to prove that God exists. It could be that it is Gods duty to prove god exists. If God has not proven ...[text shortened]... s? You might be scorned you know. If he were to reveal himself to you, How would you prove it?
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveDon't get me wrong, I'm perfectly willing to ridicule the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou fundamentalists who continue to plague society well into the 21st century. But if someone wants to believe in god and not try to shove it down everyone else's throat, then good for them.
Well, I agree with that part.
I didn't mean you specifically [re: ridiculing peoples beliefs] but there seems to be plenty of others who do, which I find more repulsive than the actual preaching itself.